From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7204 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2014 13:04:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 7195 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2014 13:04:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:03:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5OD3i0Z009491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:03:45 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s5OD3gZD030418; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 09:03:43 -0400 Message-ID: <53A9772E.5090205@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:04:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gary Benson , Eli Zaretskii CC: dje@google.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] make dwarf_expr_frame_base_1 public References: <1403279874-23781-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1403279874-23781-11-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <20140623081815.GA16611@blade.nx> <83ha3bsmgf.fsf@gnu.org> <20140624101851.GA9726@blade.nx> In-Reply-To: <20140624101851.GA9726@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00846.txt.bz2 On 06/24/2014 11:18 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:18:15 +0100 >>> From: Gary Benson >>> Is there some convention about what "_1" means in a function name? >> >> In most, if not all, cases I saw those are internal subroutines of the >> sans-_1 peers. > > Is "_1" acceptable in new code? I have a vague memory of having to > update a patch to rename a new "_1" function I'd created. If it's > not then maybe these should be renamed as people touch them. I think it's fine in the situation Eli mentions. I'm just now looking at a patch from Markus that adds one, exactly as an internal helper, for instance. > In any event, I don't think any non-static function should be called > "_1". Yeah, ideally when exporting a function we come up with a clearer name. -- Pedro Alves